Hi guys, was wondering that we see at a sword would peirce Marys soul too and that she played an important role with the redeemer. however if this is indeed is just grief, the disciples greived too, does this mean that the disciples could be called co-redeemers too?

the way I see it, is that Mary is the most important saint and disciple of all and this is why the church puts more emphasis on her being co redemptrix.

I think that co-redemptrix is a poor choice of word. If someone co-authors a book then the finished work is due to that person’s efforts. In this case, co-redemptrix runs contrary to Jesus’ statement that no one goes to the Father except through him.

This is in fact, NOT a dogma of the Church, therefore the name “fifth dogma” is at the very least misleading.

I was looking for a can of worms today. :wink:

There is a sense in which we are all “co-redeemers” to the extent that we “make up for what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” (Colossians 1:24). And, of course, who participated the most fully and the most perfectly in God’s plan of redemption? Mary.

Jesus is the sole Redeemer, since no one is saved except through Him.

We each participate in our own redemption, by cooperating with grace.
We each assist one another in our redemption, by prayer, self-denial, and good works.

Mary’s role is like our role in redemption.
She participated in her own redemption, but she was not able to save herself.
She participates in our redemption by offering her whole life and her whole self to God,
and by being the perfect and first disciple of Christ.

So co-Redemptrix must be understood as not only subordinate to Christ’s role,
but also a fundamentally different type of role. There are two types of redemptive roles.
The first type of role is held only by Christ.
The second type of role is held by all who participate in the redemption that Christ offers.
Mary is preeminent in the second type of role in redemption;
she does not have the first type of role in redemption.

**By no means **it is said in the video that Mary Co-Redemptrix is a dogma: on the contrary, the reason for the video is to explain the role of Mary as Co-Redemptrix and ***to petition *** for the declaration of a dogma, which, **if declared **, would become the fifth Marian dogma.
Probably I should have explained it before but I thought that, by watching the video, everything would be clear. I apologize for any misunderstanding.


Every infallible teaching of the Magisterium is a dogma, not only the infallible teachings under Papal infallibility and the infallible teachings of an Ecumencial Council, but also the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium.

  1. Assumpion - infallible teaching under Papal infallibility
  2. Immaculate Conception - infallible teaching under Papal infallibility
  3. Mother of God (Theotokos) - infallible teaching of an Ecumencial Council
  4. perpetual virginity - infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium

Although Mary’s perpetual virginity has been mentioned by various Popes, it was never infallibly defined by any Pope. Although Mary’s perpetual virginity has been mentioned by various Ecumenical Councils, it was never infallibly defined by any Council. So this fourth Marian dogma falls under the infallibility of the Universal Magisterium.

My exact sentiment. We all participate in the sufferings of Christ and His work of redemption, Mary in the highest way.

JMJ / MMM 19 Feb 2010 100219
My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ –
I have been reading carefully the postings in this topic. I want to share with you from a different perspective, a perspective of Vatican Council II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Would you please read the following, written by Cardinal Ratzinger, asking the Holy Spirit to give us all a greater understanding, a greater share in God’s wisdom.

The following is copied from Theological Highlights of Vatican II, by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI (Paulist Press, 1966). This book may be quite difficult to get. Try Alibris books.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote – “I want to … instead concentrate on another problem which was one of the focal issues in the ecumenical question – the problem of Mariology.

“It was without doubt an explicitly ecumenical decision when the Council decided in the fall of 1964 to incorporate the schema on Mary as a chapter in the schema on the Church. This was motivated not only by the desire to preserve proportion, keeping Mariology a part rather than an independent unit among other independent units. The move also revealed a certain theological tendency – to see Mary as a member of the Church who does not, like Christ, stand before us, but rather has her place with us and among us before the Lord, as a representative faithful Christian in the world.

“In the text, which replaced an earlier draft, the old systematic Mariology was to a considerable extent (though not completely) supplanted by a positive and scriptural Mariology. Speculation was replaced by inquiry about the events of salvation history and these have been interpreted in the light of faith. The idea of Mary of ‘co-redemptory’ is gone now, as is the idea of Mary as ‘mediatrix of all graces.’ The text still retains a vestige of the latter title when it says that the custom has developed in the Church of addressing Mary as mediatrix as well as with other titles, but this is undoubtedly very different from saying that she is mediatrix of all graces.

“All this must be kept in mind if we want to assess correctly the discussion of this topic in the Council on September 16-18, 1964. It is true that the discussion here often moved on a very mediocre level and at times scarcely rose to the level of the average devotional treatise. St . Joseph and the rosary, dedication to Mary and the devotion to the heart of Mary, the title ‘Mother of the Church’ and the search for other new titles were favorite topics of the talks, which did greater credit to the piety than the theological acumen of the bishops who delivered them. But we must not forget the fact that voices were heard which for decades we had waited in vain to hear For example, there was the significant address of Cardinal Leger who attacked the use of Marian superlatives and opposed the title ‘mediatrix,’ even in its diluted form. He said that even if the title was not without theological merit, it was none the less bound to lead, in daily usage and apart from its Christic context, to misunderstandings. Further, he demanded that the text offer clear safeguards against abuses in Marian piety. Another example is the speech by Cardinal Bea, who likewise argued emphatically against the title of mediatrix, even though he himself had strong associations with Marian devotion. He also called in question the exegesis of a number of hitherto undisputed passages of scripture which had been used uncritically by very highly placed personages in support of Mariology. Above all, there was the important address of Cardinal Alfrink, who exposed the incongruousness of the usual contrast between Marian ‘maximalists’ and ‘minimalists.’ He demonstrated the theological defectiveness of these long-undisputed categories. This pointed to the difference between the spheres of devotion and doctrine, which implied a decided criticism of the title ‘mediatrix.’

“There should be no misunderstanding. The Council did not aim to slowly but surely dismantle Marian devotion, and through this to gradually adjust to Protestantism. The aim did however have to take cognizance of the appeal made by separated Christians that the Church move away from a speculative theology that was unmindful of scripture. It had to take a sober and definite stand on the basis of biblical testimony. To see the importance of these proceedings, we must remember how accepted such titles as mediatrix and co-redemptrix had already become in theology. …… The debate, which had been feared by ecumenically minded theologians, can in retrospect be judged a debate which, despite its weaknesses, was salutary and necessary. Only thus could such voices as that of Cardinal Silva Henriquez of Santiago, Chile, be heard – voices which ushered in a new approach to Mariology.” Pages 92-95.

Dear Brothers and Sister in Christ – May the Holy Spirit help us all to see the great wisdom and blessing that has come to us all through the Church and Vatican II … and through our present Pope Benedict XVI.
John (JohnJFarren)

AMEN!!! This is such a poor choice of language that it has lost countless souls from conversion. It is my constant prayer that the Holy See will put an end to this extremely problematic language. Although efforts at this have been made sadly, those obstinately disobedient persist.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit